Talk:List of Friends episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Friends episodes article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Contents

[edit] Merge All Remaining Episodes

Episodes from seasons 2-4 have had merge tags on them for a while and none has been improved to satisfy the WP:EPISODE guideline. I suggest redirecting all remaining episode articles to this page, including those seasons that have not been formally tagged since there has been no impact from the merge tag over several months now. Eusebeus 20:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - time to sort this. --Jack Merridew 11:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So now you're not even bothering to adhere to the rules of review that you yourselves made up? Wow. Brad 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And when you say "none have been improved" I'm assuming you're too rude, lazy or just plain bone idle to have read (in their entirety) The One with the Rumor (a Good Article rated by editors who seek to improve the encyclopedia), The One with the Embryos, The One with All the Thanksgivings and The One with the Prom Video (currently a good article candidate). You obviously operate on different standards to the rest of us. It's all well and good redirecting articles that just say '"Jimmy Goes to Town" is the eighth episode of the Wikipeda TV series. In it Jimmy goes to town' to the main episode lists or the main series article. That's fine -- they don't hold any more information than the episode list, so they are redundant -- but when you suddenly say "Oh, you know what, sod the episode review we ourselves invented, let's just redirect them without a shred of discussion." So here's a list of the episode articles I believe pass the points set out in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (something descended from an actual policy). I would hope Jack Merridew, Eusebeus and TTN will join in the discussion to establish a proper consensus on this issue.
  • Hi Brad, stop shouting and relax. I am happy to weigh in on the episodes you list and I welcome the work you have done below. I will add my comments below each episode. To be accurate, I never wrote "none have been improved"; I wrote "none has been improved" because none is a singular noun. Also, although you think this is a cavalier exercise, you are quite wrong: I looked through all (or almost all) the individual episodes as part of the merge process. Eusebeus 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The One with the Lesbian Wedding: Provoked reaction from gay and anti-gay groups. Won an award. Information present in the text.
    • Retain. I rewrote this to include real-world notability. Brad even thinks I own the episode lol, so of course I think it should be retained.
      • Please tell me more about my thoughts.
  • The One After the Superbowl: Highest rated episode of the series. Information present in the text (though figure not referenced).
    • Retain Same as above. I rewrote this to indicate its notability.
      • Well done. Have a biscuit.
  • The One with the Prom Video: Official poll rates it the best episode of the series. Information present in the text.
    • Redirect It has lots of info, but it is just fancruft, not real-world notability.
      • Entertainment Weekly and USA Today exist in the real world, as do NBC and AOL (the poll-takers). Joe Garner, the author of the independent published source "Made You Laugh!", and Sangster and Bailey, the authors of the independent published source "Friends Like Us", live in the real world.
  • The One with the Princess Leia Fantasy: George Lucas congratulated the producers for the episode. Information present in the text.
    • Redirect - no real-world notability. The idea that this statement: The producers received a letter of appraisal from George Lucas, creator of Star Wars, who congratulated them on the "great" Princess Leia fantasy establishes real-world notability actually made me laugh out loud.
      • George Lucas is a real person.
  • The One Where No One's Ready: Official poll rates it third most popular episode but mixed critical reaction. Information present in the text.
    • Redirect real-world notability not asserted.
      • EW exists in the real world as do NBC and AOL (the poll-takers) and Sangster and Bailey.
  • The One with the Embryos: Introduces a major storyline brought on by an actresses pregnancy and features a critically praised subplot. Information present in the text.
    • Redirect real-world notability not asserted.
      • Sangster and Bailey, EW and MSNBC exist in the real world.
  • The One with Ross's Wedding: An American television series films in front of a foreign studio audience.
    • Redirect real-world notability not asserted. Mostly just production details but nothing that indicates whether the production was somehow notable in its location or use of sets, etc....
      • Those production details are taken from an independent published source, as are the reception from The Independent, EW and Sangster and Bailey.
  • The One Hundredth: 100th episode. Won some awards. Information not currently present in the text.
    • Redirect Brad: prior to flagging the episodes, I worked through the entire episode list in conjunction with the awards page at IMDB; I would be surprised if I missed episodes that actually won a major award, although it is possible. If the episode really won an award that's notable and can be sourced, I might change my view.
      • IMDB is not the only source for awards. I'll look into this further.
  • The One with All the Thanksgivings: Won some awards. Information present in the text.
    • Redirect as above
      • Sangster and Bailey and EW exist in the real world.
  • The One Where Everybody Finds Out: Won some awards. Information not present in the text.
    • Redirect as above
      • I'll look into the awards thing some (this and the hundredth were on that season's "For Your Consideration" tape sent to the Emmys)
  • The One After Vegas: Nominated for an award. Plenty of independent coverage.
    • Redirect I do recall that this was one of the few episode-specific award nominations, but nominated ain't winning & there is no assertion of real-world notability.
      • Discovery Channel, Sangster and Bailey and EW exist in the real world.
  • The One with the Apothecary Table: Critically mauled. Information present in the text.
    • Possible Retain - Needs a total rewrite, but the inclusion as an example of product-placement may be close to real-world notability. If so, the episode article needs to be about that and not plot and production guff. It would be nice to have additional information.
      • "Plot and production guff" is better known as "context". Besides, there is no production section in this article, which is further proof you don't read these pages before redirecting. If you believe it needs a total rewrite then be bold. Sangster and Bailey and EW are independent published sources.
  • The One Where Ross Meets Elizabeth's Dad: Bruce Willis appeared after losing a bet or something, then was nominated for or won an award. Information not present in the text.
    • Redirect - straightforward per the Episode guideline. No real-world notability.
      • Apart from an actor in a union working for free. I'll look into this more.
  • The One with Rachel's Big Kiss: Critically mauled. Information not present in the text.
    • Redirect - straightforward per the Episode guideline. No real-world notability.
      • Apart from reviewers being very vocal about it being a ratings gimmick.
  • The One Where Rachel Tells...: An example of media affected by September 11. Information present in the text.
    • Redirect - It's just a plot summary.
      • Along with a production and reception section indicating that it is an example of television affected by 9/11. Try reading the article first.
  • The One with the Rumor: Lots of independent coverage about its significance.
    • Redirect - umm, panning Brad Pitt is NOT real-world notability. I am unconvinced that this should have passed as a Good Article although before anyone gets preachy about it, recall that GA is conferred by ONE editor's review. I will own, however, that this episode comes close to asserting some notability (lots of award nominations, the hermaphrodite stuff, etc...) so I could be convinced.
      • If the good article process bothers you then please take it up with the relevant Wikiproject. If you do not believe it should have been listed as a good article then please submit it to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment.
  • The One Where Rachel Has a Baby: Third highest-rated episode of the series, won Jennifer Aniston an award. Some information present in the text.
    • Redirect - straightforward
      • Yes, a straightforward example of someone winning a "Best Actress" Emmy for their performance in a television episode.
  • The One with Rachel's Other Sister: Won Christina Applegate an award. Information present in the text.
    • Redirect - straightforward.
      • Yes, a straightforward example of someone winning a "Best Actress" Emmy for their performance in a television episode.
  • The Last One (Friends): Series finale of a long-running series. Second highest rated episode of the series. Probably won an award. Information not present in the text.
    • Possible Retain if the award is notable. Otherwise, redirect.
      • I'll look into this more. Brad 17:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (all replies this timestamp)

Those are just a few.Brad 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm keen to learn your definition of the real world. Brad 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC) And your definition of fancruft for that matter. Brad 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Brad, don't be disingenuous - you don't really need more acronyms thrown your way do you? Episode, Fict, N, etc...? Since you are obviously a big fan and you care a lot, have you considered moving the information to a fan wikia? See Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Relocating_non-notable_fictional_material. There you can provide plot summaries as long as you want, explore the minutiae of every character, etc.. etc... It may be better for your purposes rather than attempting to redact the information on a site that is, as a pillar of its existence 'an out-of-universe source, in which all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective and which must be governed by principles of notability and reliability. Eusebeus 17:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Please show me some evidence that I am "obviously a big fan". Please show me some evidence of articles I have made significant contribuitions to in which I "provide plot summaries as long as [I] want" (all plot summaries I have written or copyedited conform to the 10 words/minute guideline). Please show me some evidence of articles I have made significant contributions to in which I "explore the minutiae of every character". All of the above articles in which I have made significant contributions to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Your patronising, arrogant tone will get you nowhere. Any attempt to redirect any of the above articles will be treated as vandalism. Brad 10:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Has this discussion come to its natural end? I checked all changes to the episode articles since October 28, and this was the only encyclopedic change. Most others were minor changes, plot expansions, trivia additions, quote additions, and a redirect-unredirect action on November 14. So, is this a sign to go ahead with redirecting all episodes that currently do not assert their notability? The episode articles listed above can remain for now and be reviewed at a later time. – sgeureka t•c 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's redirect as you suggest. Most of this is stuff for wikia or tv.com, not here. Eusebeus (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No opposition in the last three days, so I've started with Season 2, 3 and 4. The other seasons will follow. My rationale was, unless the episode directly asserts its notability either by winning an award or by including significant secondary coverage, it got redirected. Any episode article can be revived anytime if and only if it directly asserts notability as outlined above. – sgeureka t•c 11:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have turned most of season 8 into redirects, although I agree with Brad's note above about the Brad Pitt episode being notable enough for its own episode. i have restored some of Brad's redirects of Season 10 as well, which were undone by admin Ryan Postlesomething. Brad: I am very sorry if my tone caused offense. None was intended. I also notice, btw, that each of the Friends characters has an in-universe fanpage. We should redirect those to a list of Main Characters article. Eusebeus 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
All episode articles that do not establish notability or do not contain significant real-world content have been redirected. All former articles can be accessed by following this link. As established, any episode article can be revived if and only if it is expanded to include at least one (sourced!) paragraph for production, and one (sourced!) paragraph for reception. – sgeureka t•c 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of List

If there are lists of only certain episodes then why have the whole list. I believe that either all or none should be linked. The only one's which should always have a page is Pilot and the last ones. I think they all should have pages. I have created one but got redirected and have tried to create overs but redirect has messed them up. that is my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs)

Ideally, every episode would have an article detailing the production and reception of the episode. But as (in most cases) such articles do not exist, this list also does not link to such articles. If you want to write an encyclopedic episode article, feel yourself invited to do so (see above). However, per WP:V, If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, and the burden of evidence to provide such sources is on the people wishing to write an article. – sgeureka t•c 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Friends1

Template:Friends1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (The sibling templates 2 through 10 are co-nominated.) – sgeureka t•c 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Season Articles

Each season now has its own article, however, it is unclear why this was parsed out into separate articles. Was there consensus to do this? As it stands, these "main" articles are just duplicates of the information here and should probably be AfD' or redirected unless a clearer case can be asserted for their existence. Eusebeus (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. They are not a copy of this article exclusively though, since a paragraph-long synopsis was added to the specific articles, but that alone doesn't seem to indicate that a separate article for each season should exist. I would suggest a general merge, by bringing the synopses into this article, since each season already has its own section here. Later on, if there's an actual need for there to be separate articles — meaning, if there is enough information specific to each season that a breakaway from the main article is justifiable — we can separate them again. But I would not recommend keeping the current naming that was used ("Season X (Friends)"), since it seems to me that this is not the ideal naming for this type of article — something like "Friends (season 1)", as it is done with the American Idol season-specific articles, would be more appropriate. Redux (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now redirected the breakaway articles back. I added in the synopses & then like the village idiot I realised that these had simply been lifted from the main article, so I have reverted back to our original version as the synopses have been restored to the story arc section at Friends. Eusebeus (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Both the main Friends article as well as the episode list still have links to the now-redirected season articles, which will need to be cleaned up. The links on the List just circular redirect. I'll try delinking them this evening if I get a chance. Captain Infinity (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
per WP:Article size it would make sense to spin this out into smaller articles. Catchpole (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no clear suggestion or consensus that a bunch of shorter lists (or ~25 entries /ch) would be better than 1 comprehensive list. And season synopses are comfortably provided at the main article. Indeed, for the purposes of improvement (particularly wrt references), a single article is probably better and will attract more cleanup. Eusebeus (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
as someone who without shame admits to unfamiliarity with this show, I think the reason for division is to permit longer summaries. Ten paragraph summaries of a single episode are indeed a abomination, and one sentence ones equally. This is apparently a notable show and the article is supposed to provide information. The is over-concise. WP is not TV guide, where a one-sentence teaser is appropriate. Its an encyclopedia, and should be informative, not just a topic listing. DGG (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (Out-indent) I think this discussion should take place at the main article page. They have had a stable version, including seasonal synopses for a while, so that is probably the best venue for generating consensus. The content fork moved stuff from that main article and I note that it was reverted back within hours. Eusebeus (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format

How come there is an individual wiki page for each episode of other programs like Family Guy but for Friends we only have this list with limited information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.27.248 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the Friends episodes do not meet our requirements for notability. Other episode articles have either met those requirements, or they simply have not been cleaned up and properly merged back to their episode lists. Wikipedia is not a television series guide for providing extensive, lengthy plot summaries of episodes. An episode should only get an article if it can establish real world notability through significant coverage in third-party sources (not including listings in TV guide, et al). The Friends episodes couldn't do that and were properly merged by consensus. Also, in the future, when someone asks you stop your wikifying, stop it already. Your continuing after the multiple warnings was extremely annoying, hence the page now being protected from you editing it. Collectonian (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to know how Family Guy episodes can 'establish real world notability' but other TV shows can't. It's just that the pages for Family Guy seem to be exactly what you don't want (a TV guide) - it seems a bit inconsistent.

Also, what is 'wikifying'? I have done nothing wrong and I have not been told to stop anything in the past.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.27.248 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You were told to stop, as per the record on your talk page before you changed IPs. As for Family Guy, didn't say they did establish notability. They probably don't and need to be merged, just no one has done the proposal. Collectonian (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please enlighten me as to the definition of the term 'wikify'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.27.248 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikify means adding links to wiki articles. They are also called internal links. For example, changing "school" to "[[school]]" is wikifying the word school, resulting in "school" becoming "school".Collectonian (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and what's wrong with that? Isn't it one of the main ways for navigating Wikipedia? Also, when did anyone tell me to stop doing it?--81.129.27.248 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the links you were adding to the episode titles were inappropriate as they all just come back to this page. Circular links are pointless, and over wikilinking is discouraged. Collectonian (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop doing it. Thank you. for your advice. I will now set up a Wikipedia account and you can be my mentor as I'm not very good but I wish to help.81.129.27.248 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All these articles used to exist, some of us view their restoration as beneficial to the project. Catchpole (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Restoration requires first establishing notability. Just throwing in circular links is not an attempt at restoration, just excessive wikification. Collectonian (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)